honorversefandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:SaganamiFan
Technical Question How Do You Make a Template? I have started a wiki on the Universe of Dirk Pitt, a series of novels by Clive Cussler, and I am wondering on how you make a template for novel. --Farragut79 06:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC) :Well, honestly I find template construction rather difficult myself; my trick is to look at other wikia wikis and copy how their infoboxes are written. The battle box and the fleet box for example are based on infoboxes from the Wookiepedia. I just copied them and changed colors, looks, and removed everything we didn't need. It takes some time to get behind how the code works, but I just try and safe as long as I need to get the wanted result. -- SaganamiFan 09:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC) ::Alrighty, thanks for the advice. --Farragut79 15:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC) :Also, how did you add the logo, and the mini logo? --Farragut79 18:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC) ::The logo has to be a .png file, and you must safe it under the exact name "Wiki.png". ::The mini logo, or favicon, has to be an .ico file. You can convert other data formats to .ico on several websites, just google "convert to ico". Then, you must upload and safe it under the exact name "Favicon.ico". ::If you've done that right, the files automatically become the new logo and mini logo. -- SaganamiFan 22:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC) One more template Thanks. One more template would be useful: a reference template saying that an article incorporates content developed by Wikipedia's editors, and linking that article (even if it is deleted). This is a copyright attribution requirement due to GFDL. --Piotrus 18:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Template:Story Hallo Landsmann! There is still one error in Template:Story: should produce HHA3.4: CoW, but is all you get and I can't localise the problem. Maybe you can find it. Thanks!--Bravomike 22:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC) :So, finally, I could fix it. Don't ask me what the problem was, but now the templates work.--Bravomike 08:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC) ::Well done. Could figure it out, too... -- SaganamiFan 11:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC) :::I notice you are allready using the templates. I'm happy that my proposal seems to be accepted.--Bravomike 14:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC) ::::fixed--Bravomike 21:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Treecat article I have just noticed your sugestion that the WP treecat article was unreferenced and likely original research to some extent. As to unreferenced, well, we are looking at fiction, and the usual scholarly apparatus of footnotes and such doesn't really apply, there being no factual claims being made and requiring connection to sources. I was the primary author of that page before it was deleted. There is no original research of any kind, nor is any aspect of it speculative. It does seriously rely on off-hand comments in the assorted texts, and makes them into connections to the universe reality. Fair enough in this context, I think. It was also constructed rather carefully to avoid disclosing too much, and to lead from the general to the specific -- at least mostly. The rearrangement in the version here is, in my view, unfortunate and makes the article less useful. You might find some of the discussion about its deletion from WP of some interest. You may note that at least one favoring deletion used "Wikia's opinion" as yet another reason to delete it as worthless for WP purposes. Not an edifying nor uplifting nor very well thought out action or discussion. Wilkipedia Ww :I'll look into it. Thanks for the update, I always find it best to have the original author in on such a discussion, so you're very welcome! I have a feeling that we are in a little bit of disagreement as to what constitutes original research, but I agree that the overall structure of the treecat article will need to be worked on. However, I found the treecat article in its WP version also rather unfortunate. We're trying to be a little more down to the facts rather than writing essays of extensive length that need to be read from beginning to end to be grasped... but that, of course, is also a matter of interpretation. :So I hope you feel in no way personally offended, because that was clearly no intention of mine, and let's see how the rest of your stuff can be integrated. :Best regards, -- SaganamiFan (Talk) 11:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC) ::No, I don't think we disagree on what constitutes original research. What I didn't do in the WP article was to cite each factoid I used. I thought that citation to fiction was silly for WP, and still do, though I understand that Wikia may have a different standard. NOTHING was original research in the WP article, and you will find this so as you adapt it to Wikia. :::As said before, I'll be glad to stand corrected, but I will also not ignore my own doubts, especially since I ran into a number of errors while adapting WP material - from misspelled names to wrong dates to terminology never used in the novel. :::And, as I also said before, a small look at Wookiepedia, Memory Alpha, or any other seriously managed fiction wiki will show you that precise citations for the given facts are a common standard. -- SaganamiFan (Talk) ::Your perspective as to it being an essay is I think incorrect. I was attempting to write and encyclopedia article, with a minor goal of not spoiling the books for those who read the article. The tone was not that of a fanatic, though some in the discussion which lead to deletion we clear that was the motive and the result as well. The choice of general topics was a consequence of the encyclopedia article style. One may disagree with their arrangement, or even the choices I made, but had it been an essay, almost none of that structure would have been present. I would have chosen a narrative arc designed to hold interest, not to neutrally describe the topic. :::I think you're taking me a little to literally here, which of course is mainly my fault for using the comparision with an essay in the first place. I apologize. -- SaganamiFan (Talk) ::The verb tense pattern adopted here is quite odd to the English speaking ear. For the Wikia article to read well, some editorial repair effort will be needed. :::Well, most of us aren't native speakers and I have to admit that on several occasions what I was taught in school/college was not consistent with what native speakers told me to be right - I'd be very glad if you explained in greater detail - after all, one never stops learning. -- SaganamiFan (Talk) ::Best of luck. Wikipedia ww 06:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC) :::Thx :-)) and I just want to make clear again how very much I appreciate the work and passion you obviously put into this article. My language was a little harsh on this matter, but that was mainly because I disliked the way it was inserted without anyone even taking a look at how things are done around here. -- SaganamiFan (Talk) 22:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC) :And as for your comment that the usual scholarly apparatus of footnotes and such doesn't really apply – it does here, as it does on most fiction wikis. -- SaganamiFan (Talk) 11:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC) I have made an editing pass over the entire Treecat article, correcting unfortunate verb tenses (and little else). You will find it on my user page at 'workbench'. Please look it over. If satisfactory, it can be substituted for the current Treecat article. I did not add the canonical reference citations which Wikia has, in my view, inappositely adopted as policy (from en:Wikipedia?). I had already checked them against Canon when writing the original Wikipedia article (overr some months) and the prospect of repeating all that work was more than I could endure. I am forced to leave it to someone else, who may at lest be assured that a citation exists and can be found and thet they are not chasing a mere will 'o the imagination. While I was editing, I noticed there was material missing which may be usefully restored from the deleted Wikipedia article, and that several other articles here show the same pattern of odd verb tenses. I expect changes will have to made to several other articles. 08:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC) :I'll look into it, and I've no problem with adding the references over time, but, frankly, what you describe as "unfortunate verb tenses" is, as far as I can make it out, mainly the use of the past tense, and we use that tense on purpose, for reasons already stated on several occasions. And don't tell me it doesn't make sense, this matter was discussed at length on numerous fiction wikis and the past tense is common on almost all of them; you won't convince me that none of the several thousand users on Memory Alpha and the Wookiepedia who are fine with that policy are native speakers. ::Per Sassure's definition of what a language is, the opinions of fluent speakers aren't readily or properly dismissible. Miss Fidditchian tidying urges to the contrary not withstanding. ::I appreciate the difference in time references in fiction of the Honorverse type, and the subsequent awkwardness in discussing them, but still hold that the convention in English (and one which clangs considerably to the fluent ear when violated) is to use present tense -- 'as though' the fictionally described action is happening at present. Some grammarian or other has probably classified this as the 'fictional present tense' or some such. There is no good conventional solution for problems of applying the same tense to events in a story not happening the time frame currently in use. But then languages aren't overly logical in their structure or conventions, so that's not much of an objection. And English is more relaxed (or wildly chaotic, your choice) than most, I gather. It certainly is with regard to vocabulary. It's verb tenses (ordinary, perfect, pluperfect, and all the rest) are, I am informed, a particular complication (almost in the sense the word is used in timepiece design). Fluent speakers find them non-trivial, unless they think carefully about it, and casual speech is a poor guide to good writing with complex temporality. ::The extensive discussion you reference (which I haven't found with a brief search -- but thanks for the pointer to the conventions policy article -- to the contrary notwithstanding. It can happen that several folks can jointly get themselves caught in an untenable situation. And inertia from that point often has a substantial large effect, regardless of merit. You may r4ecall the horse designed by a committee -- the one with the two humps, nostril flaps, and propensity to spit? :If you want to help us expand the wiki and improve the language, other than changing the accepted tempus, you're welcome to do so. If you're another guy who wants to start a crusade for the present tense, go start your own wiki and stop wasting our time. ::No, I'm not another "such guy". On this or any other time wasting crusade, with the sole exception (see my contribution history at en:Wikipedia if you are willing to endure mass typos and lots of obiter dicta) with regard to a commitment to good writing and intelligiblity for the Average Reader. How you spend your time with respect to my attempted contributions, and how your regard its expense, is, of course, up to you. The personal animus (which may be) shining through here is not a WP sort of thing, though Wikia may have a different perspective. :Next point: the main objective of a wiki article is to be accessible and reliable, which is why I will continue to press for references and see to it that articles don't get overly long and detailed – the fact that the rabbit did adapt well to life on Manticore is not relevant for the already overlong treecat article, especially since rabbits have their own one. :Sorry if I sound harsh here again, but I'm getting sick and tired of having this discussion every time a self-declared expert from Wikipedia who obviously has no experience with wikia fiction wikis comes over here and tells us how we have to do things. :-- SaganamiFan (Talk) 17:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC) ::Accessibility depends, among other things, on good writing. The verb pattern use in this article when I found it is NOT good writing; it is awkward at minimum, however ostensibly coherent is the policy which required it. It is that policy which is problematic and not the urge for accessiblity or for good writing. As for overly long, well, opinions differ. Treecats, as presented in the Canon, are complex in themselves and their interactions and implications for much in the Honorverse are as well. An article about them should reflect this 'reality'. Hard to say just what is too long. Or inadequately short. As for the rabbit, it wasn't (as I recall) in the Wikipedia article for which I was primarily responsible. And their treatment here was somewhat lumpy however they arrived -- I smoothed it out a bit rather than removing it. I more or less agree with your position, though. ::You do sound 'harsh', and 'sick and tired'. The hostility is ill conceived, by Wikipedia standards, and would suggest a Wikibreak there. I will not engage in hostilities here; disagreement and debate yes, but not that. A concern for my own time, perhaps... We are in these enterprises hostage to the good will of all, and I decline to participate when that goes badly. You may see an example of this at Talk:Password Strength on en:Wikipedia. If you choose to behave otherwise, I will leave Treecat and the Honorverse Wiki. Your choice, in essence. ::I've certainly not claimed any experience on Wikia and have made no non-collegial edits on the only article I can recall spending any time on here. I have told neither you, nor anyone else, "how you have to do things". That you can say so suggests a willingness to start up absent staircases, and that you are certainly correct about "sick and tired" and "harshness". Your choice with respect to cooperation with an Honorvese aficionado who sees things not exactly as you wish them to be seen. Wikipedia ww 03:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC) :::To be honest, I thought about changing my statement a little where the tone is concerned, but I stopped doing that back when I was on Wikipedia. Seems kind of dishonest to me... anyways, from your comments it is clear that you are fine with discussing things at length before beginning to change articles all over the place, and that is more than I can say of most people who came over from WP. Please rest assured that I'm not trying to drive you away, and I'm not gonna play the big Admin, as I detest that behaviour on WP. :::As stated before, I'll have to look around where the awkwardness of the narrative present tense is concerned, as this has never been mentioned by any native speaker on any wiki where I read discussions on that matter. I find that the policy solves a number of problems that make in-universe articles awkward (this and this are some examples of discussions on the matter) and am a proponent of the "content over form" policy. :::I hope you understand that I am hestitant to change a policy that a great many people agree on because one person claims it's unreadable for native speakers. And I hope you'll forgive me my little outbursts now and then, I know I have a tendency for them, and I'll try to do better :-) :::-- SaganamiFan (Talk) 13:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC) ::I looked at the MA discussion on use of tense in their articles. The arguments boil down to two types as I see it. The first is a logical one, something akin to our perspective in this encyclopedia is this time period and we should use the tense with respect to that perspective. Or when describing action which took place in a defined period of time we should act as though we were a fly on the wall and use present tense. Or something similarly reason based. The other type of argument is basically, it's linguistically wrong because it sounds awkward. As we are writing for a Gentle Reader, we should not put them off by awkwardness. Some awkwardness is inevitable when describing events over several thousand years (old Earth history, to the settlement of the Star Kingdom, to the latest known events in and around the MA's Oyster Bay. But I suggest that consistency is overrated in this case. An article about, say, Treecats, should not be awkward to the ear, lest the Gentlr Reader be off put. And, in any cae, I don't see MA's situation as entirely applicable. Their series are less character bound than Weber's, if only because based on independent TV serials produced, acted, written by different folks. Weber imposes a kind of unity on this one, modulo authorial continuity slips and slops. Still clangs to the fluent speaking ear, and seriously so. And all the discussion did not, as nearly as I can tell, actually reach a policyu decision. Various folks at various times announced such a decision, and none that I found received much support. Still up in the air there, on the basis of this record. Perhaps not relevant ot here however, whatever decision is (or hasn't) adopted there. ::Glad to see that you're policing my edits. For typos alone, I seem to need a keeper. Why are they invisible? To the writer, I mean. Wikipedia ww 04:15, September 7, 2009 (UTC) :::(It's obvious) I'm a not a native speaker/wrighter and from perspective of my native langage (Polish) any descriptions in present tenses concerning Honorverse (or any "future" fiction, are really ankward, and similar to teenagers' way with words). I can be wrong, but our "past tenses policy" some way can be related with passive voice (many years passed since the end of my formal education).--dotz 19:16, September 7, 2009 (UTC) ::::Were there a Polish Honorverse wiki, I'd be hopeless. I know only one phrase and it's not suitable. But in this instance, we are writing not for ourselves, but for a Gentle Reader. And since we are here, in some sense, publishing we cannot rely entirely on casual phrases and meaning sketched more than actually stated. There should be a certain formality to our writing, and that suggests we observe certain standards. Just which, well... In the case of the tenses I've spoken of here, the fluent English ear just hears clang and clunk with the policy as carried out. Not good writing and doesn't meet this suggested standard for a certain formality. ::::There is no good solution, given the fact that the events described are taking place in an imaginary future time (not yet completed -- HH may yet die), and yet English has a present tense usage which fits some of this. It is horribly clanging to hear chess discussed as if it had ceased to exist at some point. The usual English convention is what I mentioned above as the 'fiction present tense'. It's found in novels in describing circumstances, background, etc and is not entirely out of place in an enterprise such as this. It leads to oddities, but the question is not really what doesn't, but which policy reads better most of the time. English has a large number of tenses (some of which look the same as others for some reason) and fluent use of them is one of the oddest corners of an odd language. Most people were baffled when they studied the more exotic flavors in school, and nearly all have abandoned any pretense at worrying about the problem in practical life. This is inadequate for us as we're not dealing with practical life, but with the somewhat formal publishing sort of thing I mentioned above. :::You may be able to suggest a parallel instance in Polish. I certainly cannot. Piotrus is likewise originally Polish as I understand it, and he may have an idea or two for constructing tense conundrums in Polish. ::::And I think some of this discussion would be well moved off of SF's talk page. As you noted (below) it's become something of a discussion forum. Ideas how to do so? Wikipedia ww 08:13, September 8, 2009 (UTC) Well, forgot about Polish. A historian writes like this http://jiltanith.thefifthimperium.com/Collections/TorchofFreedomChapters/TorchofFreedom_01.php (SF will be probably so kind to move that discusson elsewhere).--dotz 16:48, September 8, 2009 (UTC) Completing a change of your talk page into forum let me add some side issues: * Our tempus principle could be stated somewhere on the main page, something like "we are (crazy)(quasi-)historians paying a tribut to Kalpriades and Hester McReynolds". I hope such mission statement would let to avoid some misunderstandings and disputes. * Long articles are less attractive to read (even mine). The best compromise is to extract suitable sections as separate articles and leave a link there (eg. section title, short note and link to a main article). Good example is treecats physiology (we will know about it more and more). * Last but not least - you guys got me interested in treecats. * BTW - where can I find list of treecats deleted from WP? (not present at deletionpedia) dotz 15:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Follow up to your "E-Mail" message... SF-- This is a response to your message on my page... QUOTE E-mail Hi there! To send a private message to a user's e-mail account, simply type in "Special:EmailUser/Username". However, this won't work for Farragut79, because he hasn't specified a valid adress. (Tried it before ;-) -- SaganamiFan (Talk) 10:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC) ENDQUOTE Where do I type in this "Special:EmailUser/Username"? LP-mn 23:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Special:EmailUser/SaganamiFan This is a test. LP-mn 23:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Adriennedillon I have written before with the username adriennedillon. Why did it disappear?-- 03:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC) :Don't know, your discussion still exists... can you log on or does he tell you that your account doesn't exist? -- SaganamiFan (Talk) 09:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Kraków Cool, I am going to visit my friends there in a few weeks, so we can meet (my mobility is limited by todler, very reluctant with long travels - it is ca 3 hours from Wrocław, so we don't travel to often). And what is your job in Kraków? :) --dotz 19:55, October 2, 2009 (UTC) :I can't find your e-mail, so I tried to send a private message via Honorverse.--dotz 21:06, October 2, 2009 (UTC)